Subject: RE: [HAB:] Trilateralism [Ken]
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2003 22:53:05 -0500




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-habermas-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
[mailto:owner-habermas-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU] On Behalf Of matthew
piscioneri
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 7:48 PM
To: habermas-AT-lists.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: RE: [HAB:] Trilateralism [Ken]

MattP 
*Ideological* may be a misnomer here. By *ideological* I roughly understand 
the articulation of a p.o.v that serves an exclusive societal interest. So, 
I am suggesting that the interest in emancipation - even whilst the 
*contents* of this interest concern universalism/egalitarianism - is the 
interest of a specific social group (ideological). It's a difficult one to 
clarify, for whilst the objective of this ideology is *inclusive* (and thus 
in the interests of *all*) the interest in pursuing this interest in 
emancipation originates from a specific social group and is their (our!!!) 
ideology.

KM
Doesn't that kind of make the idea of ideology useless? As you have it here,
ideology is pretty much any point of view, insofar as that point of view can
be generalised in the form of a specific social interest (irregardless of
whether or not that interest in universal or particular). In effect, the
desire to theorise is ideology; the desire to be democracy is ideology, and
so on. I don't see how this understanding of ideology is helpful. Why not
link the concept of ideology up with power-influence-interest rather than
perspective?

MattP
This is unless you hold onto Habermas's _KHI_ era notion that reason's 
interest in itself is emancipatory. Too Idealistic for me :-).

KM
The human interest in reason IS most likely emancipatory. So, I guess I'm
idealistic. Fine by me.

MattP
Now I did also intend something else. The point I was suggesting was that 
Cook (and the rest of us who place themselves in the service of practical 
efforts) maintain the veil of hopefulness, and thus - in some small but not 
altogether irrelevant way, especially if we get to corrupt the youth by 
learning this interest to others - sustain the supportive social 
psychological framework (existential comfort zone) that makes possible the 
other horrible stuff to flourish :-).

What stuff? All the stuff Cook thinks Habermas *should* be critically 
exposing.

KM
Where does Cook rely upon hopefullness?!? And even if there is a 'hopeful'
moment in criticism, why is that equated with consolation - the bane of
critical theory 101?

ken



     --- from list habermas-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---